User talk:J. M./Archive 3

Sorry for annoying
Dear J.M I am sorry to select minor edit, i need your help to edit the dead link with a new active link talking in the same topic ,you can check it yourself ,i hope you accept my edit at this artical Regards, Hesham Magdy

Hesham20000 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 

Encoding/decoding strategies and 2D transformations of "vertical video"
Dear J.M.: The link you removed is about important technical problems related to the "vertical video"; "Encoding/decoding strategies" and "2D transformations". It is not even mentioned in the existing text. Just read the link. Let me know your opinion on that subject: technical problems of "vertical" vs "horizontal" video. Thank you, User: R25mftDUpzD284 — Preceding unsigned comment added by R25mftDUpzD284 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. In accordance with External links, links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum. They should mostly contain links to official websites etc. Furthermore, external links on Wikipedia should never contain promotional links, links that violate the Conflict of interest and Spam guidelines. The primary purpose of that page is not teaching about video transformation. It is just a help page for the Breeze software product, which is quite obviously the real reason this link was added. Such links are not allowed on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation
I have not seen on web an explanation of mentioned above problems as it is done in the removed reference. But, it seems, it does not matter. As far as I understand from your remarks, any association with a software product, even free to use, making a reference inadmissible. Thank you, User: R25mftDUpzD284 — Preceding unsigned comment added by R25mftDUpzD284 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Association with a software product is not inadmissible. For example, an article about a product called XY can include links to the XY product website. But when you have a general topic such as Vertical video and then add an External links section consisting of a link to the XY product website, it is quite obvious spam that has to be removed, as the purpose of the link is obviously not "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" that the External links guideline requires. All links on Wikipedia should always be added with the aim of improving the encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Links added with the aim of promoting a product, website, company or an individual have to be removed. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
 * A rule of thumb for all Wikipedians: Am I here to improve Wikipedia? Good, go ahead. Am I here to promote my business? You are in the wrong place.—J. M. (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: GABgab 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

List of PDF software
Hmm, you don't remove Poppler-utils but it does not have an article. -- Polluks ★  13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * poppler-utils is a part of Poppler, so it does have its own article.—J. M. (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the utils are a separate package, it uses the library like VPDF... -- Polluks ★  22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * poppler-utils is Poppler . The Poppler library (libpoppler) and utilities (poppler-utils) are both part of Poppler. It does not matter that your Linux distribution packages it separately (a separate package does not mean a separate product—many software products are packaged as several individual packages in some Linux distributions, and not all distributions package poppler-utils separately, see for example the Arch Linux package which includes both libpoppler and poppler-utils in a single package). VPDF is a different product made by different people. It is not notable, cannot have its own article or its own entry in the list.—J. M. (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

difference between OGG and MP3?
What can you tell me about the the difference between MP3 and OGG? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the MP3 and Ogg articles explain the difference sufficiently. MP3 is an audio coding format, Ogg is a container format. For example, you can have an Ogg file with Theora video and Opus or FLAC audio inside.
 * A better question would be: What is not the difference between Ogg and MP3? And the answer would be—everything in that article on differencebetween.net. The article is pure hogwash from A to Z. First, it's Ogg, not OGG. Then, Ogg is not a lossy audio compression format. What the article really talks about is Vorbis. By the way, MP3 does not "maintain the same sound quality of the significantly larger PCM WAV formats" (that's why MP3 is a lossy audio compression format). Furthermore, the difference between Vorbis and MP3 is not that Vorbis supports variable bit rate. Of course MP3 supports variable bitrate, too. The final summary saying "OGG is the open source equivalent of MP3. Therefore, it is free to all with no strings attached" is total nonsense, too. First of all, MP3, Ogg and Vorbis are formats, not software products, therefore they cannot be open-source or closed-source. The Xiph.Org Foundation also produces software implementations of Ogg and Vorbis called libogg and libvorbis, and these are indeed open-source software products, but of course there are open-source MP3 implementations, too (e.g. LAME, libavcodec). What the author really meant by "free to all with no strings attached" was probably the patent-free status. That is, the author confuses copyright with patents. But MP3 is now patent-free, too (the MP3 patents have expired).
 * Now, the only value of such an extremely pathetic article is a demonstration of the Dunning–Kruger effect. People of low ability greatly overestimate their competence. They lack the cognitive ability to realize how incompetent they are. That's why they keep doing things that greatly exceed their capabilities. The anonymous author of this article does not have the slightest idea what (s)he's writing about. Yet, (s)he decided to write it and spread misinformation.
 * Which brings me to the purpose of external links on Wikipedia. They should only include links to serious, reliable sources. Anonymous, dubious, obscure websites like differencebetween.net are completely forbidden. The External links section should be kept to a minimum and contain only official links or material that somehow enhances encyclopedic understanding of the subject (like links to the MP3, Ogg or Vorbis specifications). Even if this article was correct (which would mean a complete rewrite), it would still not be a candidate for the External links section, as it's just a beginner's guide with no added value. The articles on Wikipedia explain all this and more.—J. M. (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: WebM
Hi. Apologies for the error(s). I was careless. I didn't reply sooner because of the talk post that has since been removed. Those things freak me out and I don't want to get in the middle of anything.

Cheers.

Rblack2001 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Andy Murray
Could you please visit Talk:Andy Murray and substantiate your claim that 'This IS the official community consensus reached on the talk page. That's why the notice is there. See Talk:Andy_Murray/Archive_14#Request_for_Comment_British_tennis_player_or_Scottish_tennis_player]]'. Please indicate what specific part of the link you have cited indicated 'consensus' or how in your view anything has ''official community' status in this regard. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I already replied on the talk page. Please read Consensus, especially the "Through discussion" section (which also mentions the official Wikipedia mechanisms like RfC). To be quite honest, I am rather surprised (to put it mildly) I have to explain these elementary things to an admin.—J. M. (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen your reply when I posted. We should keep conversation there, and please try to keep things civil if you can. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
I just sent an email to you.

The treatment I received here
You mounted a personal attack against me in a public forum, and did not offer me the benefit of the doubt, both of which are violations of the guidelines. If you had concerns about my presence here, you should have emailed me. I would appreciate it if you would rectify the situation.David10001 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a personal attack. I was pointing you to the WP:COI guideline, which is the standard practice on Wikipedia. Nothing to rectify here. Please read the Introduction and Help:Getting started pages, as you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works at all (e.g. ) Contacting users by email is not how we communicate here, it is reserved for confidential cases, and COI is a public issue on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I felt that you did mount a personal attack upon me, the guidelines required me to send you a polite email, rather than responding on the talk page of the article, see No personal attacks. So in some cases, communication by email is acceptable. I only took the issue to your user talk page because I did not receive an emailed response.


 * I never had any intention to violate any guidelines. I should have looked first. If you take a look at Talk:List of online music databases, you will see that I have made efforts to comply.


 * While I appreciate that you took the time to post some links to the guidelines, that is not what I took offense to ( I even thanked you for it publicly, so I don't understand why you brought that up). My mistake was in not looking at the guidelines before proceeding, and I apologize for that. If you have questions about another users' motives, you should bring those concerns up with that user privately. Instead, you barely stopped short of accusing me of being here for self-promotion. Yes, you can talk about a possible COI, (but on the users' talk page, not the talk page of the article). I do, however, think it should be done privately at first (benefit of the doubt). I would suggest doing so in a more respectful manner from now on. And do you not see how hotlinking to an article about the "royal we" might be offensive? If you had an issue with my use of the word "we", why not simply ask me about my usage of the word? Why attack me in a public forum over it? And insinuating publicly that I have no credibility? From the above guideline, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". These are unacceptable, and I would like both to be retracted.


 * Why not just post the relevant guideline links, with a "please study these before proceeding further", with out the extraneous writing? Nothing more was necessary.David10001 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you really don't understand how things work here. We don't notify users of possible COI violations by e-mail. We tell them directly on talk pages, whether the COI is confirmed or not. This is the standard, correct, long-standing, community-agreed practice on Wikipedia.
 * You don't understand the No personal attacks policy either. It does not mean we don't warn users about possible WP:COI violations, it does not mean we don't give them warnings for vandalism, spamming, improper behaviour and other things, it does not even mean we don't publicly question their credibility when there is a strong reason for it. (Yes, we really do this frequently on Wikipedia, regular Wikipedians and administrators do this all the time when dealing with disruptive editors—it's not a question of if, but when. Which is the most basic thing you have to understand when you read no personal attacks, assume good faith and other guidelines, but also generally in life. No guidelines or general words of wisdom are meant to be followed 100%, blindly, you always have to follow their intent, not the literal slogan). None of this constitutes personal attacks, as there is nothing personal about it. We are warning them because of their acts & behaviour, not because of their personality (even though, admittedly, the former is often determined by the latter). Again, it does not matter whether we are absolutely sure there is an actual conflict of interest, if we are sure the user is a spammer and not just a good-faith editor who added spam links by accident. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient. We just warn them when they act disruptively. We don't contact them privately by e-mail, unless there is a real reason for it (like sensitive private information in WP:COPYRIGHT cases, or some "secret" information in WP:SPI). Users with a conflict of interest have to reveal it publicly on Wikipedia. It is not a private issue. Furthermore, I did not accuse you of a conflict of interest. I sad if you have a conflict of interest (it was very reasonable to assume that you might have a COI, and it turned out to be true), you should know that we have the COI guideline here. Again, this is the standard way of telling these things to users on Wikipedia. Thousands of Wikipedians have been reminded of these things in this manner.
 * I really did not want to explain this issue any further, exactly because I was trying to save you from public humiliation—what I said on the talk page was intentionally diplomatic, concealing multiple unflattering circumstances that would show you in a bad light. That's why I only posted slight hints (like the "we"), hoping that you would perhaps silently understand, smile about it, admit your mistake and that would be it. But since you seem to be incapable of letting this issue go (I have no idea why you still keep messaging me when the discussion has been long dead and I clearly have no interest in reviving it), I will have to give you a summary (I really wanted to avoid this in my previous messages, as the summary is necessarily long and I really didn't want to pollute Wikipedia with walls of text about these trivial quibbles that don't really deserve it):
 * User:Waereghem added a red link to a stand-alone list that only includes links to existing articles. His/her edit was reverted with the explanation that the list does not include red links.
 * Now, User:Waereghem did exactly the most common thing that spammers do: re-added the item, and marked the edit as a minor edit. This alone is difficult to classify as a good-faith edit, since first of all, this is the most notorious, #1 tactic used by spammers on Wikipedia (that is, trying to hide spam as minor edits, hoping that it would pass unnoticed), and secondly, User:Waereghem clearly knew that the link was rejected (and why), and therefore, quite obviously, decided to cheat. As the WP:MINOR article explains, marking major edits as minor is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia, especially when it's done intentionally. (Again, pointing to poor behaviour has nothing to do with personal attacks; even the official Wikipedia information page mentions it.)
 * The link was rejected again, by another user, for the same reason. #User:Waereghem got a couple of standard warnings on his/her talk page, explaining that the list only includes links to existing articles, and that major edits should not be marked as minor.
 * User:Waereghem decided to ignore the warning once again and re-added the item (with the suggestion that it has an article on the Italian Wikipedia).
 * Naturally, the edit was reverted again, as the initial explanation that was ignored several times (the article only includes links to existing articles on the English Wikipedia) still stands. User:Waereghem got another warning, explaining the requirement in more detail (only links to existing articles on the English Wikipedia).
 * This is where it would normally end. But curiously enough, another user (that is, you) decided to post an extremely weird message on the talk page. The message was wrong in so many ways I really had a hard time sticking to the main facts in my reply, generously omitting all the breaches of etiquette in your message. Firstly, who was it? Initially, I had no idea who wrote the message and why, as the message was unsigned, therefore basically anonymous, but most importantly, it was written by someone who has never edited the page. Yet you wrote "We are trying to add a entry" to the page, without revealing who the "we" is. This alone was bad enough. Who is "we"? There is no one in the article history that could be deciphered as "we". The entry was repeatedly added by User:Waereghem, but the user was already warned several times and stopped adding the entry, and if he (s)had a problem with it, (s)he could have asked the question on the talk page. Furthermore, as I explained to you later, you always have to edit and act for yourself on Wikipedia, you cannot edit as a group (a company, website etc.) Secondly, you ignored all the explanations that the article only includes links to existing English articles, and decided to phrase the request rather aggressively, suggesting that something wrong is going on here. You even said that you did not ignore any warnings, which was obviously wrong, as User:Waereghem (supposing you and (s)he is "we") indeed ignored several warnings. Then you basically admitted you have a conflict of interest, as you said that you would "bring it up with the SecondHandSongs management". This, for any reasonable Wikipedian, is a reason to inform a user about the conflict of interest guideline and to explain that using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising or promotion is not permitted. That's why I said to you that if you had a conflict of interest (and you admitted you have a COI), please refrain from editing pages related to the website. Which, again, is the standard recommendation on Wikipedia. Nothing personal about it. Referring you to the royal we article as a lighthearted reminder that you cannot refer to yourself in plural on Wikipedia—instead of listing all the things that were wrong in your message and behaviour—was a rather gentle way of handling all the above-mentioned unfavourable circumstances.
 * Now, I really hope this will put an end to this discussion. I don't know why you still feel the need to keep messaging me about this, a week later, despite being so obviously wrong, so let me say this more clearly: I have no interest in continuing this conversation. I've really had enough, so please don't take it personally if I don't reply to you anymore, either by e-mail, on my talk page or on the article talk page. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. One last thing I would like to add: Being fair is infinitely more important than being polite. This is the most substantial piece of wisdom I have gathered in my life. Far above any Wikipedia policy or guideline, even though it does not contradict them. Rather, it complements them, explains their real purpose. Politeness, civility does not mean being silent about the wrongdoings of others. When you are impolite to an innocent person, you are being unfair. Conversely, when you persistently obsess about and feel offended by a single word that someone has said, ignoring the real gist of his message, you you are being unfair, too. To the best of my knowledge, you were not treated unfairly on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I realize you are probably not going to respond, which is fine, no offense taken. I didn't have an issue with you bringing up the COI violation (which I pointed out already). It's the way you went about it. A simple apology for the offense caused would have settled the matter (no need to take time to write all of that). And I apologize for any offense I caused. As far as responding a week later, I can't spend every minute of every day looking to see if I have received a response. And I didn't receive any notification from the Wikipedia software stating such (I don't know if it is supposed to or not). And I'm frustrated trying to comply with the guidelines. And I did try to make amends for my mistakes. And in my personal life, I never question someones motives in breaking rules without discussing it privately first. If I don't get a resolution, then I go public. I guess I'm just too old-fashioned about certain matters. I have learned about user warnings and a few other things (like how to sign a message) since my initial post, so something good did come out of this. I think I pointed this out already, however. You missed it somehow, hence you keep whacking me with it. I don't know if we will encounter each other again, but if we do, please recuse yourself from dealing with me. It will be too aggravating for both of us. Hopefully your future endeavours go better than this.David10001 (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)